This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#91DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2013 9:25:55 AM
Precisely why the God stuff is a priori good argument holds no grounds. Its an opinion, and as you said, an assumptino.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#92DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2013 9:27:00 AM
the arguments put forth by me and by the advocaters of Hell being just will speak, and people will believe what they believe.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#93OrangeWizardPosted 2/7/2013 9:38:34 AM
It holds ground. You just have to be operating under the same assumption that the argument does.

Just like everything else.
For example, you can't make a logical argument without assuming the law of non-contradiction.

Not operating under those same assumptions does not destroy or counter the argument. It merely avoids it.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#94DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2013 9:53:36 AM(edited)
From: OrangeWizard | #093
It holds ground. You just have to be operating under the same assumption that the argument does.


Why does yours hold ground?

Just like everything else.


Define 'everything else'


For example, you can't make a logical argument without assuming the law of non-contradiction.


I have no grounds to make that assumption. Anyways, demonstrate how my argument isn't in compliance with that law. the only pre-resuquite of my Hell analysis is assuming someone (In a stretch, I can even say that someone doesn't have to be a God at all) wrote the Bible. Demonstrate my errancy and why your assumption of an Occam's razor in my moral assessment would in fact more valid than my assumption that burning someone forever is evil. If you need to examine the law of non-contradiction, here's the source on it I looked at before responding. Save you a google trip, if you want. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

Not operating under those same assumptions does not destroy or counter the argument. It merely avoids it.


You're avoiding my assumption. Your arguments are pathetically reversible.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#95OrangeWizardPosted 2/7/2013 10:16:36 AM
From: DarkContractor | #093
Why does yours hold ground?


My what?

Define 'everything else'


literally everything else. Even this sentence. You have to assume that when I use words, I'm using them correctly, and I'm not doing "opposite day". Otherwise, communication is impossible.

I have no grounds to make that assumption


You have no grounds to make the assumption that God is a trickster, either, so why should I operate under that assumption?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#96SilviiroPosted 2/8/2013 3:28:36 PM
Yes he was. If you're going to assume he was wrong for doing so, well I'll expand on this point in my point about Mark.

I don't get that from anything he wrote at all.

I have no problem admitting this, but your explanations have zero evidence. By unwarranted, there is no need to explain good and evil; Determinism and life's neutrality completely suffice for this, both of which are observable. Christianity adds sin and spirit to the mix when it has nothing to explain here. But because that invites its own questions, we make up more evidenced theories to back that up.

My explanations are based on the assumptions you made in the initial points of this topic. Without the existence of sin, a Biblical Hell would not exist. Now if you wish to talk about the existence of absolute morality it would be a different topic.

Ah, ontological argument. the most perfect thing in the universe is God. Is there any evidence that I'm subject or that God has commanded me?

The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of a god. My argument is merely about the nature of a presumed Biblical God.

tis a shame, because if this is your defense, then we can conclude that a trickster God wrote the Bible, since the Bible claims omnipotence.

The Bible was not written in English, and "almighty" does not imply the ability to do anything, merely the ability to do everything which can be done.

Is there any evidence that I'm subject or that God has commanded me?

If you are accepting the Bible as an axiom then that would be sufficient evidence.

I'm taking a stab in the dark here (and this is what I feel you're doing with Paul), "the Bible is infallible." "this part of the Bible thats fallible? not really a part of the Bible."

That particular section is not in the earliest manuscripts and thus is questionable, and you are the one that is claiming the Bible is infallible for the purposes of this topic. I have not made any claims outside of deductions from your axioms. If you wish to accept that as part of your infallible Bible then it is fine.

anyways, you conveniently skipped the part about "anyone who believes will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. they will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. they will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."

You have to interpret it in the context of the New Testament, and you are using a strange translation. My translation says "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." It seems to be speaking of a certain group at that time. Which fits with the rest of the New Testament. "As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease." There were people described chronologically after this point that clearly believed yet did not work any miracles.

In relation to the two dogs analogy, I wasn't saying it was literally the two dogs analogy. I have no idea how you could interpret anything I said that way. It's like the Matrix and the Allegory of the Cave. Though they both focus on different aspects, they use a similar analogy for a similar point.

Yesterday I had to prove 1 is a positive integer so I'm in hardcore axiomatic logic mode.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#97DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/8/2013 5:07:51 PM
I don't get that from anything he wrote at all.

then I fail to see your point. elaborate, please.

My explanations are based on the assumptions you made in the initial points of this topic. Without the existence of sin, a Biblical Hell would not exist. Now if you wish to talk about the existence of absolute morality it would be a different topic.

I brought up another point, that's all. I've done so all throughout the topic.


The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of a god. My argument is merely about the nature of a presumed Biblical God.


Ontological is that the most perfect thing in the universe is God, but even if we can imagine a more perfect God, the default is Ontological.


The Bible was not written in English, and "almighty" does not imply the ability to do anything, merely the ability to do everything which can be done.

fair enough, conceded.


If you are accepting the Bible as an axiom then that would be sufficient evidence.

Well, God's never spoken to me, nor given me any conclusive reason to believe that he has through a book or by any other means, so really it's disproving my axiom. (the point of me making these axioms is to then test them out, and see what the results are)


That particular section is not in the earliest manuscripts and thus is questionable,


neither is James, iirc. regardless, citation needed.

and you are the one that is claiming the Bible is infallible for the purposes of this topic. I have not made any claims outside of deductions from your axioms. If you wish to accept that as part of your infallible Bible then it is fine.

Again, the point of assuming an axiom isn't to just assume it and then act like an assumption just makes it true. We have to assume things to test them out with reality and then see if the assumption is proven or disproven. On your math problem, if 1 was actually a negative number, you wouldn't go "Nope it's positive my axioms are correct nope nope nope" You would assume there is a problem with your axiom, not just run wild with both of them together.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#98DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/8/2013 5:08:02 PM
You have to interpret it in the context of the New Testament, and you are using a strange translation. My translation says "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover." It seems to be speaking of a certain group at that time.


there is literally nothing, nothing, in the phrase "those who believe", that implicates a group specifically within believers or a specific time period. In fact, I see zero difference between the implications of saying that and saying "anyone who believes".


Which fits with the rest of the New Testament. "As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease."

As for signs accompanying people? As for being able to drink poision? As for being able to heal the dead? It's funny, because [unfulfilled] prophesying and speaking in tongues is the only two miracles I see Christians commit in front of anyone who asks. Which verse is that anyways?

There were people described chronologically after this point that clearly believed yet did not work any miracles.

the Bible contradicting itself? Well, there goes my axiom of the Bible being infallible! Hey, see how that worked? Surely there's some Occam's razor in the form of a hole in logic showing how Biblical contradictions aren't really contradictions.

In relation to the two dogs analogy I wasn't saying it was literally the two dogs analogy. I have no idea how you could interpret anything I said that way. It's like the Matrix and the Allegory of the Cave. Though they both focus on different aspects, they use a similar analogy for a similar point.

I don't know Matrix/ AooC, so that comparison is lost on me, unfortunately. Mind elaborating? I see nothing in what Paul said to suggest a 'two dogs' analogy.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#99SilviiroPosted 2/8/2013 5:59:21 PM(edited)
then I fail to see your point. elaborate, please.

What we are taking from the same text seems to disagree.

neither is James, iirc. regardless, citation needed.

It would be impossible for a letter, like James, not to be in its own older manuscripts. That would make it a different letter. I'm too lazy to find a real citation at the moment so here is Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending

Again, the point of assuming an axiom isn't to just assume it and then act like an assumption just makes it true.

An axiom is something you assume to be true. Whether it is true in actuality is irrelevant.

On your math problem, if 1 was actually a negative number, you wouldn't go "Nope it's positive my axioms are correct nope nope nope" You would assume there is a problem with your axiom, not just run wild with both of them together.

1 could be a negative number if you do not have the axioms to make it not so.

there is literally nothing, nothing, in the phrase "those who believe", that implicates a group specifically within believers or a specific time period. In fact, I see zero difference between the implications of saying that and saying "anyone who believes".

When it says "those who believe" it reads like a prophecy of a specific event, like most of the things Jesus said.

As for signs accompanying people? As for being able to drink poision? As for being able to heal the dead?

It's a poetic bit specifically about certain people who felt special for having certain spiritual gifts.

It's funny, because [unfulfilled] prophesying and speaking in tongues is the only two miracles I see Christians commit in front of anyone who asks.

I've never seen those, but I generally avoid that subject around people who do that sort of thing.

Which verse is that anyways?

It is from the 13th chapter of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

the Bible contradicting itself? Well, there goes my axiom of the Bible being infallible!

You cannot throw out something you take as an axiom. If you take as an axiom that 1 is a negative integer you have to base your entire mathematical system on that axiom.

I don't know Matrix/ AooC, so that comparison is lost on me, unfortunately. Mind elaborating? I see nothing in what Paul said to suggest a 'two dogs' analogy.

That's a major action movie, a mediocre comedy, and the most famous analogy of Socrates you haven't gotten references to. I give up on making pop culture analogies for you.
---
"I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind." -- Ecclesiastes 1:14
#100countzanderPosted 2/8/2013 6:04:44 PM
Universal reconciliation is an emotional response to the problem of hell. It doesn't merit serious consideration.

But the criticism of annihilation is intellectually dishonest. As post #9 points out, no one knows what a being like God should do, because no one can imagine being in that situation. "Well, God should have done x, because that's what a good god would do!" But unless you have access to all available information, you don't know what God should do. It's dishonest to assert otherwise.

It's like Obama's effort to close Guantanamo. During his campaign, he knew just as much about the prison as the rest of us. In his ignorance, he asserted that he would close the prison after election. Well...after he became elected and had access to all the information, it was only then that he knew closing the prison would be practically impossible.
New information forces us to act differently than our ignorance would have allowed. To think an ignorant human knows enough about anything to tell God what to do is the pinnacle of arrogance.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg